A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights

From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:27

On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit
> > > > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and
> > > > of itself 'waves'.
>
> > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>
> > What I choose to believe
>
> It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>

Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double
slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this
was unnecessary and a mistake. The particle has a physical aether
wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever
'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring
in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an
interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment.

This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to
choose to believe the future determines the past.

A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement
wave.

> > is matter and the aether are different states
> > of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60
> > molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one
> > something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent
> > a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the
> > past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than
> > yours.
>
> > > > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are
> > > > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining
> > > > the past.
>
> > > > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> > > > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which
> > > > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to
> > > > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > > He's
> > > > > > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly
> > > > > > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little
> > > > > > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of
> > > > > > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond
> > > > > > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world--
> > > > > > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad,
> > > > > > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for
> > > > > > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life?
>
> > > > > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and
> > > > > > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up
> > > > > > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really
> > > > > > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think
> > > > > > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of
> > > > > > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing.
>
> > > > > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them?
> > > > > > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
>
>

From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:29

On Feb 17, 12:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:02 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:f45910fe-89b2-4a09-9dcb-fcaf4686df7a(a)w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 16, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Feb 16, 2:16 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:17353969-96de-46d5-b54c-74e655e2d34f(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:48499780-10ed-4377-b4cf-0bde5b5d298f(a)28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > > > > > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________
>
> > > > > > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the
> > > > > > > > > ether.
> > > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > c,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > > > > > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the
> > > > > > > > speed
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't
> > > > > > > > measure your speed relative to the aether.
>
> > > > > > > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > fifth time?
>
> > > > > > > > ______________________________________
> > > > > > > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the
> > > > > > > > ether.
> > > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > difference is your speed relative to the ether.
>
> > > > > > > How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'?
>
> > > > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > > > Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a
> > > > > > > constant
> > > > > > > relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the
> > > > > > > observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > c,
> > > > > > > and then the difference is the speed of the ether.
>
> > > > > > > Why won't that work?
>
> > > > > > I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of
> > > > > > light? Are you using mirrors?
>
> > > > > > ____________________
> > > > > > No. I am using a metre ruler and two clocks, one at each end. I
> > > > > > synchronise
> > > > > > the clocks, separate them by a metre, and note the difference between
> > > > > > arrival and departure time. The difference between this and c is my
> > > > > > speed
> > > > > > relative to the ether. Why won't this work?
>
> > > > > You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the
> > > > > aether. <snip about 200 lines involving trains, embankments and whole
> > > > > lot
> > > > > of
> > > > > other stuff unrelated to my question>
>
> > > > > ____________________________________
> > > > > No. There is no train in my question.
>
> > > > Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize
> > > > it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table,
> > > > but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the
> > > > aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a
> > > > spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved
> > > > the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the
> > > > aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being
> > > > pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the
> > > > aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved.
>
> > > > __________________________________
> > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the spaceship.
>
> > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time:
>
> > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre
> > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one
> > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for light
> > > > to
> > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this
> > > > manner
> > > > be c or some other value?
>
> > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top?
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether.
>
> > Then the tabletop is the train.
>
> Tabletops are trains. Excellent. Have another pill.

The poster is referring to a tabletop moving at 'v' with respect to
the aether. My explanation refers to a train moving at 'v' with
respect to the aether.

With respect to the aether, the type of object moving at 'v' with
respect to the aether which the clocks are moved on/in is irrelevant.

From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 20:39

On Feb 17, 1:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >>news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups..com...
>
> > >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken?
> > >> >> >> > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you.
> > >> >> >> > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you that the
> > >> >> >> > electric field is not physical?
>
> > >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is physical
> > >> >> >> and
> > >> >> >> at that time you think that physical means material.
>
> > >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said it
> > >> >> > was
> > >> >> > PHYSICAL.
>
> > >> >> >> You even
> > >> >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by
> > >> >> >> shooting
> > >> >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of the
> > >> >> >> observer.
>
> > >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
> > >> >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
> > >> >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
> > >> >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>
> > >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
> > >> >> >> material.
>
> > >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>
> > >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that contraction
> > >> >> >> in
> > >> >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material
> > >> >> >> contraction.
>
> > >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to support
> > >> >> > your
> > >> >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at the
> > >> >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you? Why
> > >> >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check whether
> > >> >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a small
> > >> >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever correct a
> > >> >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend all
> > >> >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>
> > >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically closer
> > >> >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame. In
> > >> >> that
> > >> >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a shorter
> > >> >> distance (ie compressed).
>
> > >> > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about
> > >> > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression as
> > >> > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a
> > >> > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's not
> > >> > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no atoms
> > >> > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but this does
> > >> > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't imagine it
> > >> > happening any other way).
>
> > >> I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer together.
>
> > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that
> > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer
> > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten
> > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect.
>
> > It is a geometric projection / rotation. And that projection has physical
> > effects. Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted ladder
> > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a doorway.
>
> So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the
> ladder get a little closer? I don't think so.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Atoms don't shrink to be flat.

Mitch Raemsch

From: Inertial on 17 Feb 2010 21:48

"BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6140f9f-414d-45b2-8ce2-09e22a201f9b(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 1:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >>news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > >> > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > >> >>news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> >> > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken?
>> > >> >> >> > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you.
>> > >> >> >> > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you
>> > >> >> >> > that the
>> > >> >> >> > electric field is not physical?
>>
>> > >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is
>> > >> >> >> physical
>> > >> >> >> and
>> > >> >> >> at that time you think that physical means material.
>>
>> > >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said
>> > >> >> > it
>> > >> >> > was
>> > >> >> > PHYSICAL.
>>
>> > >> >> >> You even
>> > >> >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by
>> > >> >> >> shooting
>> > >> >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of
>> > >> >> >> the
>> > >> >> >> observer.
>>
>> > >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
>> > >> >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
>> > >> >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>> > >> >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>>
>> > >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
>> > >> >> >> material.
>>
>> > >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>>
>> > >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that
>> > >> >> >> contraction
>> > >> >> >> in
>> > >> >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material
>> > >> >> >> contraction.
>>
>> > >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to
>> > >> >> > support
>> > >> >> > your
>> > >> >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at
>> > >> >> > the
>> > >> >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you?
>> > >> >> > Why
>> > >> >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check
>> > >> >> > whether
>> > >> >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a
>> > >> >> > small
>> > >> >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever
>> > >> >> > correct a
>> > >> >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend
>> > >> >> > all
>> > >> >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>>
>> > >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically
>> > >> >> closer
>> > >> >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame.
>> > >> >> In
>> > >> >> that
>> > >> >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a
>> > >> >> shorter
>> > >> >> distance (ie compressed).
>>
>> > >> > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about
>> > >> > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression as
>> > >> > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a
>> > >> > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's not
>> > >> > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no
>> > >> > atoms
>> > >> > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but this
>> > >> > does
>> > >> > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't imagine
>> > >> > it
>> > >> > happening any other way).
>>
>> > >> I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer together.
>>
>> > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that
>> > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer
>> > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten
>> > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect.
>>
>> > It is a geometric projection / rotation. And that projection has
>> > physical
>> > effects. Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted
>> > ladder
>> > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a
>> > doorway.
>>
>> So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the
>> ladder get a little closer? I don't think so.
>>
>> Ken Seto
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Atoms don't shrink to be flat.

Not in their rest frame .. no. So never intrinsically flat.

And never completely flat.

But their 'geometric projection' in some other relatively moving frame means
that they would measure as somewhat flattened (depending how fast the moving
frame is moving)

From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 22:08

On Feb 17, 6:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6140f9f-414d-45b2-8ce2-09e22a201f9b(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 1:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > >>news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups..com...
>
> >> > >> > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> >> > >> >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > >> >>news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> >> > >> >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> >> >> > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken?
> >> > >> >> >> > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you.
> >> > >> >> >> > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you
> >> > >> >> >> > that the
> >> > >> >> >> > electric field is not physical?
>
> >> > >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is
> >> > >> >> >> physical
> >> > >> >> >> and
> >> > >> >> >> at that time you think that physical means material.
>
> >> > >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said
> >> > >> >> > it
> >> > >> >> > was
> >> > >> >> > PHYSICAL.
>
> >> > >> >> >> You even
> >> > >> >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by
> >> > >> >> >> shooting
> >> > >> >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of
> >> > >> >> >> the
> >> > >> >> >> observer.
>
> >> > >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
> >> > >> >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
> >> > >> >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
> >> > >> >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>
> >> > >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
> >> > >> >> >> material.
>
> >> > >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>
> >> > >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that
> >> > >> >> >> contraction
> >> > >> >> >> in
> >> > >> >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material
> >> > >> >> >> contraction.
>
> >> > >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to
> >> > >> >> > support
> >> > >> >> > your
> >> > >> >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at
> >> > >> >> > the
> >> > >> >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you?
> >> > >> >> > Why
> >> > >> >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check
> >> > >> >> > whether
> >> > >> >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a
> >> > >> >> > small
> >> > >> >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever
> >> > >> >> > correct a
> >> > >> >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend
> >> > >> >> > all
> >> > >> >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>
> >> > >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically
> >> > >> >> closer
> >> > >> >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame.
> >> > >> >> In
> >> > >> >> that
> >> > >> >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a
> >> > >> >> shorter
> >> > >> >> distance (ie compressed).
>
> >> > >> > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about
> >> > >> > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression as
> >> > >> > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a
> >> > >> > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's not
> >> > >> > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no
> >> > >> > atoms
> >> > >> > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but this
> >> > >> > does
> >> > >> > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't imagine
> >> > >> > it
> >> > >> > happening any other way).
>
> >> > >> I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer together.
>
> >> > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that
> >> > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer
> >> > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten
> >> > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect.
>
> >> > It is a geometric projection / rotation. And that projection has
> >> > physical
> >> > effects. Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted
> >> > ladder
> >> > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a
> >> > doorway.
>
> >> So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the
> >> ladder get a little closer? I don't think so.
>
> >> Ken Seto
>
> >> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Atoms don't shrink to be flat.
>
> Not in their rest frame .. no. So never intrinsically flat.
>
> And never completely flat.
>
> But their 'geometric projection' in some other relatively moving frame means
> that they would measure as somewhat flattened (depending how fast the moving
> frame is moving)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If they can flatten the physics doesnt' work for the atom.
Can anybody argue that atoms are lopsided?

Mitch Raemsch